Sri. Govind Murali, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Sri. Govind Murali, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on the petitioner's own submission; there shall be no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting proper investigation in Crime No. 36 of 2017, dt. 20-02-2017, on the file of Zaheerabad Town Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered against respondents 4 to 10/accused 1 to 7 under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Recording the submissions of both learned counsel (petitioner's counsel seeking dismissal as infructuous and the Assistant Government Pleader raising no objection), the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No adjudication was made on the merits of the alleged improper investigation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (N. Tukaramji, J.), Writ Petition No. 13280 of 2017, decided 01-09-2025: The petitioner, Govind Murali, had sought a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring that the action of the 3rd respondent (Station House Officer, Zaheerabad Town Police Station, Sangareddy District) in not conducting proper investigation in Crime No. 36 of 2017, dt. 20-02-2017, registered against respondents 4 to 10/accused 1 to 7 under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC, was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A companion miscellaneous petition (WPMP No. 16479 of 2017) under Section 151 CPC sought a direction to the 3rd respondent to investigate the case and take legal action against respondents 4 to 10. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for adjudication and sought its dismissal as infructuous; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home took no objection. Recording the submissions of both counsel, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, made no order as to costs, and directed that pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. No finding was rendered on the merits of the investigation grievance.

t3217 1

/

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE FIRST^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FIVE}

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 13280 OF 2017}

Between:

sri. Govind Murali, s/o.^{Ramaiah, Aged 33 y9a19, ogq softytlareEngineer,} nio. l6urf<rprrrvVffige^{N-rayanakrrdOMand'al,Medak Dist.,Now. At Sri Sai} Bliaji Uifayim,^{'ptot fl6-tO, Gdyathri Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad.}

...PETIT!ONER

AND

The State of^{Telangana, Rep. by its PrincipalSecretary, Home Department,} Secretariat at HYderabad.

The Superintendent^{of Police, Sangareddy District,}

The Station House^{Officer,Zaheerabad townPolice Station,Sangareddy Dist.}

Yempally Nagenderappa,^{S/o. Gurappa, Aged 63 years,occ: Agriculture.}

Yempally shivshanker,^{s/o. Nagenderappa,Aged 43 years, occ:Business,}

.6^{Divya Bharathi, D/o. Nagenderappa,Aged28 years, occ: Household} The Respondent^{4 to 6 are R/o. 5-1-41, Shanthinagar.Zaheerabadtown,} SangareddY district.

Veeresham, s/o.^{Not known, Aged 25 years, occ: Private Employee,} R/o. Zaheerabad^town,

g. Boini Narsimulu, s/o. Narsappa, Aged 50 years, occ Agriculture, R/o. Manikprabhu^{street, Zaheerabad town.}

g. Machkuri chandraiah, s/o. Ramulu, Aged 45'years, occ Agriculture, R/o. Manikprabhu street,^{Zaheerabadtown}

10.K. Shekar, S/o. Sangameshwar,^{Aged40 years,Rl/o.Shanthi.Nagar Street,} - nlo. Snanthi Nagar Street, Zaheerabad town. Sangareddy district.

...RESPONDENTS

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ order or direction more^{particularly in the nature of writ of}

Mandamus declaring The action of the 3'd^{Respondentin not conducting proper} investigation in Crime No. 36 of 2017, dt.^{20-02-2017on the file of Zaheerabad} town Poli:e Station, Sangareddy District registered^{against the Respondents4 to} 16/Accus:d 1 to 7, U/s. 323,3O7,504, 506 rlw.34^{IPC and the sameis illegal,} arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the fundamental^{rights guaranteed under} Articles^'1 4 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia

!,A-t^llOl^{OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 16479 OF 2017)}

Pe':ition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affida'rit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to Direct the 3rd Respondent to investigate in to the case and take legal action against the Respondernts 4 to 10 in Crime No. 36 of 2017, dt. 20-02-2017 on the file of Zaheerabad town Police Station, Sangareddy District

Counsel I'or the Petitioner: SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH

Counsel l'or the Respondent Nos.l to 3: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDDY, AGP FOR HOME

Counsel l'or the Respondent Nos.4 to 10: ---

The Court made the following: ORDER

0 I

a

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of constitution of

lndia seeking the following relief:

I l

"...fo issue a writ order or direction more particutarly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the { Respondent in not conducting proper investigation in Crime No. 3G of 2OlT dated 20.02.2017 on the file of Zaheerabad town Potice Stafibn Sangareddy District registered against fhe Respondenfs No.4 to 10/Accused Nos.l to 7 U/s 323, 307, 504, S0O r/w. 34 tpc and the same is illegal arbitrary discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia...."

Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in this Writ petition does not survive for adjudication and seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition as infructuous.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader takes no objection to

the same.

/_.-'

2

i { I ! ti I I I I I I I I I i I iIIt ? i I I

Recording the submissions of both the learned counsel, this .

Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order

as to cor;ts.

[/i:;cellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGI

//TRUE COPY/

OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri^palle Sriharinath, Advocate tOpUCl

Two ccs to Gp_for Home, High court for the state of rerangana, at Hydr-.rabad [OUT]

Two CD Copies TJ TJ

A

,! -t

<br>

HIGH^.COURT

DATED i0110912025

ORDERI

1 HES
t(
()
2 0 [[B 2026 z
*
x

WP.No.13280 of 2017

DISMISS]NG^{THE WRIT PETITIONAS} ir.r rnuc'tuou^{s wlTHour cosrs}